Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DETAILS
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Committee on Pathways to Urban Sustainability: Challenges and Opportunities;
Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Policy and Global Affairs;
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
I
t must be recognized that ultimately all sustainability is limited by biophysical limits and finite resources at
the global scale (e.g., Burger et al., 2012; Rees, 2012). A city or region cannot be sustainable if its principles
and actions toward its own, local-level sustainability do not scale up to sustainability globally. Thus, localities
that develop an island or walled-city perspective, where sustainability is defined as only activities within the city’s
boundaries, are by definition not sustainable.
At its core, the concept of sustainable development is about reconciling “development” and “environment”
(McGranahan and Satterthwaite, 2003). Development, i.e., the meeting of people’s needs, requires use of resources
and implies generation of wastes. The environment has finite resources, which present limits to the capacity of
ecosystems to absorb or break down wastes or render them harmless at local, regional, and global scales.
If development implies extending to all current and future populations the levels of resource use and waste
generation that are the norm among middle-income groups in high-income nations, it is likely to conflict with
local or global systems with finite resources and capacities to assimilate wastes. As described in Chapter 2, many
indicators and metrics have been developed to measure sustainability, each of which has its own weaknesses and
strengths as well as availability of data and ease of calculation. Some of the most prevailing indicators include
footprinting (e.g., for water and land) and composite indices (e.g., well-being index and environmental sustain-
ability index). It is beyond the scope of this report to examine all available measures, and readers are directed to
any of the numerous reviews that discuss their relative merits (see, for example, Čuček et al., 2012; EPA, 2014a;
Janetos et al., 2012; Wiedmann and Barrett, 2010; Wilson et al., 2007; The World Bank, 2016; Yale University,
2016). New sustainability indicators and metrics are continually being developed, in part because of the wide
range of sustainability frameworks used as well as differences in spatial scales of interest and availability (or lack
thereof) of data. In recent years, city-level sustainability indicators have become more popular in the literature
(e.g., Mori and Christodoulou, 2012).
Here we use the concept of ecological footprint, which has been proposed as an analytic tool to estimate the
“load” imposed on the ecosphere by any specified human population (Berkowitz and Rees, 2003). We choose
it not because it is without controversy, but rather because it is one of the more commonly cited indicators that
has been widely used in many different contexts around the world. The metric most often used is the total area
of productive landscape and waterscape required to support that population (Rees, 1996; Wackernagel and Rees,
1996). Ecological footprint analysis has helped to reopen the controversial issue of human “carrying capacity.”
The ecological footprint of a specified population is the area of land and water ecosystems required continuously
27
over time to produce the resources that the population consumes, and to assimilate the wastes that the population
produces, wherever on Earth the relevant land and/or water is located.
Ecological footprint calculations show that the wealthy one-fifth of the human family appropriates the goods
and life support services of 5 to 10 hectares (12.35 to 24.70 acres) of productive land and water per capita to sup-
port their consumer lifestyles using prevailing technology. Only about 2 hectares (4.94 acres) of such ecosystems
are available, however, for each person on Earth (with no heed to the independent requirements of other consumer
species). In discussing sustainability from a global perspective, Burger et al. (2012) argued that the laws of ther-
modynamics and biophysical constraints place limitations on what is possible for all systems, including human
systems such as cities. Given the relevance and impact of these constraints to the discussion of various pathways
to urban sustainability, a further examination of these issues and their associated challenges are described in
Appendix C (as well as by Day et al., 2014; Seto and Ramankutty, 2016; UNEP, 2012).
Daly (2002) proposed three criteria that must be met for a resouce or process to be considered sustainable:
• For a renewable resource—soil, water, forest, fish—the sustainable rate of use can be no greater than the
rate of regeneration of its source.
• For a nonrenewable resource—fossil fuel, high-grade mineral ores, fossil groundwater—the sustainable
rate of use can be no greater than the rate at which a renewable resource, used sustainably, can be sub-
stituted for it.
• For a pollutant—the sustainable rate of emission can be no greater than the rate at which that pollutant
can be recycled, absorbed, or rendered harmless in its sink.
Fiala (2008) pointed to two issues that can be raised regarding the ecological footprint method. One is that the
ecological footprint is dominated by energy as over 50 percent of the footprint of most high- and middle-income
nations is due to the amount of land necessary to sequester greenhouse gases (GHGs). The other is associated to
the impact of technology intensity that is assumed for characterizing productivity in terms of the global hectare.
The results do show that humans’ global ecological footprint is already well beyond the area of productive land
and water ecosystems available on Earth and that it has been expanding in the recent decades.
DESCRIPTION OF PRINCIPLES
Urban sustainability has been defined in various ways with different criteria and emphases, but its goal should
be to promote and enable the long-term well-being of people and the planet, through efficient use of natural
resources and production of wastes within a city region while simultaneously improving its livability, through
social amenities, economic opportunity, and health, so that it can better fit within the capacities of local, regional,
and global ecosystems, as discussed by Newman (1999).
Because an increasing percentage of the world’s population and economic activities are concentrated in urban
areas, cities are highly relevant, if not central, to any discussion of sustainable development. While urban areas
can be centers for social and economic mobility, they can also be places with significant inequality, debility, and
environmental degradation: A large proportion of the world’s population with unmet needs lives in urban areas.
Although cities concentrate people and resources, and this concentration can contribute to their sustainabil-
ity, it is also clear that cities themselves are not sustainable without the support of ecosystem services, including
products from ecosystems such as raw materials and food, from nonurban areas. Indeed, it is unrealistic—and not
necessarily desirable—to require cities to be solely supported by resources produced within their administrative
boundaries. Thinking about cities as closed systems that require self-sustaining resource independence ignores the
concepts of comparative advantage or the benefits of trade and economies of scale. Since materials and energy
come from long distances around the world to support urban areas, it is critical for cities to recognize how activities
and consumption within their boundaries affect places and people outside their boundaries. Here it is important
to consider not only the impact on land-based resources but also water and energy that are embodied in products
such as clothing and food.
Ultimately, all the resources that form the base on which urban populations subsist come from someplace on
the planet, most often outside the cities themselves, and often outside of the countries where the cities exist. Indeed,
often multiple cities rely on the same regions for resources. Thus, urban sustainability cannot be limited to what
happens within a single place. The sustainability of a city cannot be considered in isolation from the planet’s finite
resources, especially given the aggregate impact of all cities. Therefore, urban sustainability will require making
explicit and addressing the interconnections and impacts on the planet.
Urban sustainability is therefore a multiscale and multidimensional issue that not only centers on but transcends
urban jurisdictions and which can only be addressed by durable leadership, citizen involvement, and regional
partnerships as well as vertical interactions among different governmental levels.
In this context, we offer four main principles to promote urban sustainability, each discussed in detail below:
1 Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the “planetary playing field” for humanity if we want to be sure of avoiding major
human-induced environmental change on a global scale (Rockström et al., 2009). The concept of planetary boundaries has been developed to
outline a safe operating space for humanity that carries a low likelihood of harming the life support systems on Earth to such an extent that they
no longer are able to support economic growth and human development . . . planetary boundaries do not place a cap on human development.
Instead they provide a safe space for innovation, growth, and development in the pursuit of human prosperity in an increasingly populated
and wealthy world (Rockström et al., 2013).
BOX 3-1
Implications of Principle 1
In short, urban sustainability will require a reconceptualization of the boundaries of responsibility for
urban residents, urban leadership, and urban activities. It will require recognition of the biophysical and
thermodynamic aspects of sustainability. Simply put, any sustainability plans, including those applied in
urban areas, cannot violate the laws of nature if they are to achieve acceptable, long-term outcomes for
human populations. Cities have central roles in managing the planet’s resources sustainability (Seitzinger
et al., 2012).
There are many policy options that can affect urban activities such that they become active and positive forces
in sustainably managing the planet’s resources. In many ways, this is a tragedy of the commons issue, where
individual cities act in their own self-interest at the peril of shared global resources. One challenge in the case of
cities, however, is that many of these shared resources do not have definable boundaries such as land. Moreover,
because most cities are geographically separated from their resource base, it is difficult to assess the threat of
resource depletion or decline. Thus, some strategies to manage communal resources, such as community-based,
bottom-up approaches examined by Ostrom (2009a), may be more difficult to obtain in urban settings. Another
approach is for government intervention through regulation of activities or the resource base.
As one example, McGranahan and Satterthwaite (2003) suggested that adding concern for ecological sustain-
ability onto existing development policies means setting limits on the rights of city enterprises or consumers to
use scarce resources (wherever they come from) and to generate nonbiodegradable wastes. Such limits can be
implemented through local authorities’ guidelines and regulations in planning and regulating the built environ-
ment, e.g., guidelines and regulations pertaining to building material production, construction, building design
and performance, site and settlement planning, and efficiency standards for appliances and fixtures. Ultimately,
the laws of thermodynamics limit the amount of useful recycling.
Goals relating to local or global ecological sustainability can be incorporated into the norms, codes, and
regulations that influence the built environment. But city authorities need national guidelines and often national
policies. In most political systems, national governments have the primary role in developing guidelines and sup-
porting innovation allied to regional or global conventions or guidelines where international agreement is reached
on setting such limits.
The effort of promoting sustainable development strategies requires a greater level of interaction between
different systems and their boundaries as the impacts of urban-based consumption and pollution affect global
resource management and, for example, global climate change problems; therefore, pursuing sustainability calls
for unprecedented system boundaries extensions, which are increasingly determined by actions at the urban level.
This is to say, the analysis of boundaries gives emphasis to the idea of “think globally, act locally.”
Principle 2: Human and Natural Systems Are Tightly Intertwined and Come Together in Cities
Healthy people-environment and human-environment interactions are necessary synergistic relationships that
underpin the sustainability of cities. In order for urban places to be sustainable from economic, environmental,
and equity perspectives, pathways to sustainability require a systemic approach around three considerations: scale,
allocation, and distribution (Daly, 1992). Human well-being and health are the cornerstones of livable and thriving
cities although bolstering these relationships with myopic goals that improve human prosperity while disregarding
the health of natural urban and nonurban ecosystems will only serve to undermine both human and environmental
BOX 3-2
Implications of Principle 2
Healthy people, healthy biophysical environments, and healthy human-environment interactions are
synergistic relationships that underpin the sustainability of cities (Liu et al., 2007).
urban sustainability in the long run. The future of urban sustainability will therefore focus on win-win opportuni-
ties that improve both human and natural ecosystem health in cities. These win-win efficiencies will often take
advantage of economies of scale and adhere to basic ideas of robust urbanism, such as proximity and access (to
minimize the time and costs of obtaining resources), density and form (to optimize the use of land, buildings, and
infrastructure), and connectedness (to increase opportunities for efficient and diverse interactions).
Local decision making must have a larger scope than the confines of the city or region. Discussions should
generate targets and benchmarks but also well-researched choices that drive community decision making. Sustain-
ability is a community concern, not an individual one (Pelletier, 2010). Healthy human and natural ecosystems
require that a multidimensional set of a community’s interests be expressed and actions are intentional to mediate
those interests (see also Box 3-2).
BOX 3-3
Implications of Principle 3
As networks grow between extended urban regions and within cities, issues of severe economic, politi-
cal, and class inequalities become central to urban sustainability. Efforts to reduce severe urban disparities
in public health, economic prosperity, and citizen engagement allow cities to improve their full potential and
become more appealing and inclusive places to live and work (UN, 2016b). Policies and cultural norms
that support the outmigration, gentrification, and displacement of certain populations stymie economic
and environmental progress and undermine urban sustainability (Fullilove and Wallace, 2011; Powell and
Spencer, 2002; Williams, 2014). Long-term policies and institutionalized activities that can promote greater
equity can contribute to the future of sustainable cities.
transportation, or waste. A multiscale governance system that explicitly addresses interconnected resource chains
and interconnected places is necessary in order to transition toward urban sustainability (Box 3-4).
Urban sustainability requires the involvement of citizens, private entities, and public authorities, ensuring that
all resources are mobilized and working toward a set of clearly articulated goals. This is particularly relevant as
places undergo different stages of urbanization and a consequent redrawing of borders and spheres of economic
influence. Sustainable solutions are to be customized to each of the urban development stages balancing local
constraints and opportunities, but all urban places should strive to articulate a multiscale and multipronged vision
for improving human well-being. An important example is provided by climate change issues, as highlighted by
Wilbanks and Kates (1999): Although climate change mainly takes place on the regional to global scale, the causes,
impacts, and policy responses (mitigation and adaptation) tend to be local.
As discussed by Bai (2007), the fundamental point in the scale argument is that global environmental issues
are simply beyond the reach and concern of city government, and therefore it is difficult to tackle these issues at
the local level. As simple and straightforward as this may sound, the scale argument encompasses more than spatial
scale—it is composed of multiple dimensions and elements. Bai (2007) points to three—the spatial, temporal, and
institutional dimensions—and in each of these dimensions, three elements exist: scale of issues, scale of concerns,
and scale of actions and responses. Understanding these interconnections within system boundaries, from urban to
global, is essential to promote sustainability. In particular, the institutional dimension plays an important role in
how global issues are addressed, as discussed by Gurr and King (1987), who identified the need to coordinate two
levels of action: the first relates to “vertical autonomy”—the city’s relationship with federal administration—and
the second relates to the “horizontal autonomy”—a function of the city’s relationship with local economic and
social groups that the city depends on for its financial and political support.
BOX 3-4
Implications of Principle 4
A holistic view, focused on understanding system structure and behavior, will require building and
managing transdisciplinary tools and metrics. This requirement applies to governance vertically at all levels
of administration, from local to federal and international, and horizontally among various urban sectors and
spaces. Durable sustainability policies that transcend single leaders, no matter how influential, will also be
necessary to foster reliable governance and interconnectedness over the long term for cities.
Catalyze and Engage Partnerships with Major Stakeholders and the Public
Urban sustainability requires durable, consistent leadership, citizen involvement, and regional partnerships as
well as vertical interactions among different governmental levels, as discussed before. Furthermore, the governance
of urban activities does not always lie solely with municipal or local authorities or with other levels of government.
Nongovernmental organizations and private actors such as individuals and the private sector play important roles
in shaping urban activities and public perception.
Implementation
Institutional scale plays an important role in how global issues can be addressed. For example, as discussed
by Bai (2007), at least two important institutional factors arise in addressing GHG emission in cities: The first is
the vertical jurisdictional divide between different governmental levels; the second is the relations between the
local government and key industries and other stakeholders. According to the definition by Gurr and King (1987),
the first relates to vertical autonomy, which is a function of the city’s relationship with senior-level government,
and the second relates to horizontal autonomy, which is a function of the city’s relationship with local economic
and social groups that the city depends on for its financial and political support. The implementation of long-term
institutional governance measures will further support urban sustainability strategies and initiatives.
tourism, etc.), as discussed in Chapter 2. Classifying these indicators as characterizing a driver, a pressure, the
state, the impact, or a response may allow for a detailed approach to be used even in the absence of a compre-
hensive theory of the phenomena to be analyzed. The use of a DPSIR model posits an explicit causality effect
between different actors and consequences and ensures exhaustive coverage of the phenomena contained in the
model (Ferrão and Fernandez, 2013).
Developing new signals of urban performance is a crucial step to help cities maintain Earth’s natural capital in
the long term (Alberti, 1996). The task is, however, not simple. The challenge is to develop a new understanding
of how urban systems work and how they interact with environmental systems on both the local and global scale.
Three elements are part of this framework:
1. Key variables to describe urban and environmental systems and their interrelationships;
2. Measurable objectives and criteria that enable the assessment of these interrelationships; and
3. Feedback mechanisms that enable the signals of system performance to generate behavioral responses
from the urban community at both the individual and institutional levels.
A DPSIR framework is intended to respond to these challenges and to help developing urban sustainability policies
and enact long-term institutional governance to enable progress toward urban sustainability.
Urban Metabolism
Urban metabolism2 may be defined as the sum of the technical and socioeconomic processes that occur in
cities, resulting in growth, production of energy, and elimination of waste (Kennedy et al., 2007).
2 Abel Wolman (1965) developed the urban metabolism concept as a method of analyzing cities and communities through the quantification
of inputs—water, food, and fuel—and outputs—sewage, solid refuse, and air pollutants—and tracking their respective transformations and
flows. See also Holmes and Pincetl (2012).
Characterizing the urban metabolism constitutes a priority research agenda and includes quantification of the
inputs, outputs, and storage of energy, water, nutrients, products, and wastes, at an urban scale. This task is complex
and requires further methodological developments making use of harmonized data, which may correlate material
and energy consumption with their socioeconomic drivers, as attempted by Niza et al. (2009), NRC (2004), Pina
et al. (2015), and Rosado et al. (2014).
Once established, urban metabolism models supported by adequate tools and metrics enable a research
stream to explore the optimization of resource productivity and the degree of circularity of resource streams that
may be helpful in identifying critical processes for the sustainability of the urban system and opportunities for
improvement.
3 Clark, C. M. 2015. Statement at NAS Exploratory Meeting, Washington, DC. October 15, 2015.
Urban sustainability therefore requires horizontal and vertical integration across multiple levels of governance,
guided by four principles: the planet has biophysical limits, human and natural systems are tightly intertwined and
come together in cities, urban inequality undermines sustainability efforts, and cities are highly interconnected.
A comprehensive strategy in the form of a roadmap, which incorporates these principles while focusing on the
interactions among urban and global systems, can provide a framework for all stakeholders engaged in metropolitan
areas, including local and regional governments, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations, to enable
meaningful pathways to urban sustainability. Science can also contribute to these pathways by further research and
development of several key facets of urban areas including urban metabolism, threshold detection of indicators,
comprehension of different data sets, and further exploration of decision-making processes linked across scales.